How good was Obama’s campaign?

Cross-posted from The Wardman Wire:

I’ve blogged before about some of the myths around Obama’s campaign – the exaggerated tales of seas of small donors and soaring turnout. Now it’s time to look at how the votes played out across the country and see what it tells us.

The US Presidential election is (with some minor exceptions) a first past the post election run across each state, with the winner scooping all the spoils. It doesn’t matter whether you win New York state by 1% or 99%; either way the result counts the same in the tally towards winning the Presidency. Therefore, when it comes to targeting campaign activities, there is a strong incentive to ignore states that are likely to be either landslide victories or defeats and instead pour efforts into the marginal areas. These ‘swing states’ in the US political parlance therefore have much the same place in campaign calculations as marginal constituencies have in the UK.

Traditionally, that targeting has primarily involved deciding where to run TV adverts, where to direct direct mail and where to send your campaign’s big names for visits. Plot Obama and McCain’s visits for 2008, for example, and you see a huge cluster in the key swing states.

The broad story of the Obama campaign is that it was well run, highly successful and used the internet in particular to mobilise large amounts of grassroots campaigning. Up against a McCain campaign that had far less money and is seen as having been much weaker, you might therefore have expected to see a fair amount of variation in the swing to Obama between different parts of the country. A good campaign, targeting its efforts well, would garner extra support in key swing areas.

The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. The Swing State Project website has compared the votes share won by Obama in 2008 against that won by Kerry in 2004 on a House district by House district basis.

2004 v 2008 Democrat vote share

(Click on image for larger version.)

As you can see from the graph, there is a striking uniformity in the change in votes. In nearly every district Obama polled more votes, and the increase was pretty uniform. There are a few outliers, which isn’t a surprise given the changing demographics of the US – very dramatic in some areas – and that the candidate teams this time came from different states from last time. Overall though the picture is one of consistency, not variation – and there isn’t any sign of a clutch of districts that clearly show an effective campaign garnering extra votes in the key swing areas.

So how to explain this?

One possibility is that the McCain campaign was better than it has been given credit for and whilst Obama’s campaign did effectively target areas, this was cancelled out by a McCain effort targeting those areas too.

A second possibility is that the targeted efforts of the Obama campaign just weren’t that good after all. We know that the much hyped talk of driving up turnout turned out to be largely a myth, so perhaps there’s a myth here too?

The third possibility is that Obama’s campaign was so successful that it ending up making its targeting redundant. This slightly perverse outcome is what happened to Labour’s 1997 general election campaign. That campaign put large amounts of effort into a range of key marginal seats, yet the swing to Labour in them was little different from that overall.

The reason? Labour’s supporters were so fired up across the country, and there was such strong word of mouth, that this swamped the targeting efforts. So perhaps the explanation is that Obama was a fantastic candidate, pulling in so much support from blanket media coverage and generating enthusiasm from people all over the place, that it swamped the efforts to target vote winning at particular areas.

The jury is still out on which of these, or what combination of them, is the explanation. But it’s certainly the case that the prima facie evidence is that the Obama campaign didn’t manage to target successfully its efforts at getting votes where they really mattered. So the next time you hear about the campaign’s targeted phone voter ID work, or micro-targeting of direct mail, or 101 other techniques, apply some pinches of salt before consuming.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in LDVUSA.
Advert

12 Comments

  • My partner’s got relatives that live in Idaho – a deeply red neck state with diddly squat votes. They’re Democrats and were supporting Hilary in the primaries. However Obama was the only presidential candidate of any party to visit Idaho – the shock value of that was enormous. No presidential candidate of any party ever campaigns in Idaho because it’s a foregone conclusion of little consequence (Kerry has a house there and even he didn’t campaign there last time).

    By the time polls close on election day in Idaho, pundits have already predicted who’s won. The incentive to go and cast your vote is not exactly high.

    The message that Obama’s visit sent to Democrats in Idaho was that they counted – and that’s perhaps how he got that shift. His campaign was about the voters as much if not more than the candidate.

  • “you might therefore have expected to see a fair amount of variation in the swing to Obama between different parts of the country. A good campaign, targeting its efforts well, would garner extra support in key swing areas.”

    You’re wrong to say that a good campaign would have a swing in target areas in the main part. That was not the nature of the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign followed the 50 state strategy, and didn’t tend to let any states go. It does not mean Obama’s campaign was not as good as people think because there was a “striking uniformity in the change in votes”; on the contrary, such uniformity is a validation that the 50 state strategy worked. The uniformity in swing shows that Obama’s campaign was successful.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 9th Jul - 1:29am
    The sad scandal of the unprotected care homes in which so many have died before their natural time will not be put right by any...
  • User AvatarMike Jay 9th Jul - 12:26am
    The article in "The Australian" that Peter referred to is behind a paywall. However, the article is freely available at https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
  • User AvatarMike Jay 8th Jul - 11:28pm
    I'm reminded of my undergraduate days back in the 1960s. The students' union repeatedly passed motions demanding that the US Government withdrew from the Vietnam...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 8th Jul - 11:01pm
    Michael BG, Torry is clear that a tax increases are only viable if the net disposable income of the great majority of taxpayers is increased...
  • User AvatarGraham Evans 8th Jul - 10:29pm
    It's all very well blaming the care sector for its shortcomings but you get what you pay for. Providing social care is extremely labour intensive,...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 8th Jul - 10:28pm
    Joe Bourke, In response to me you make a comment about the poverty trap and the people of Fife being in favour of a UBI....